On 2012-04-26 09:27:08 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I've done the experiment from time to time of supporting -ansi or > --std=c99, but even for small code bases I consider it the kind of thing > that one does as a hobby or out of curiosity. It's not a very good way to > actually get work done and write code that is portable on a practical > level (meaning that people on multiple UNIX platforms can just run > ./configure && make). In MPFR, we use that together with -pedantic-errors mainly for testing purpose, to ensure that MPFR still builds on a C90 or C99 platform, e.g. all non-portable extensions that we use should be optional. And conversely, we do not want to require -ansi or --std=c99, because extensions are useful for efficiency or for some special features (e.g. logging). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
